Models for Improvement and Process Assessment of Software Development - Term Paper Example

Project Management Name: Course: Table of Contents Project Management 1 Table of Contents 2 1.Introduction 3 2.Management of systems development projects 5 2.1.CMMI 7 2.2.ISO/IEC 15504 8 3.Differences between CMMI and ISO/IEC 15504 10 3.1.Process Areas 10 3.2.Processes 11 3.3.Representation 11 3.4.Organizational capability 11 3.5.Role of lead assessor 12 3.6.Strengths and weaknesses 12 4.Relationship between CMMI and ISO/IEC 15504 13 4.1.Maturity Levels and Corresponding Capability Profiles 14 5.Conclusions 17 References 19 1. Introduction In the world of software development, there are three components that determine the product quality. People who are responsible for the developing the software system, along with the technology that is employed, with the organization and the development process determined by them is also a critical path. Further, the development process is established as a major component or factor for starting any development with the increasing complexity of these projects over the years. The reason for this might be the fact that the development process has been concerned with the support of the management of any firm. Accordingly the sizable products are very small in number and are also connected to become revenue churner. These results are also the result of the process that may be a part of the huge process. In cases like this, symptoms like high cost, delivering late should be analyzed in a project like this (Ferreira and Machado 2009). Although, there is a little skepticism about people and the technology, the processes have not always been accepted in the sphere of software development. Nevertheless, organizations around the world have recognized the need of having process management and employing process models and other details to be profitable (Ferreira and Machado 2009). Process and development as they are accepted around, have a huge impact on the software quality and other methods for modeling the process that are developed are evolved continuously. With such models, organizations are allowed to assess the processes as well raise quality of the software through improving the process performance. It is also called process improvement. In the paper, we will understand more about process models particularly the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) as well as its successor CMM Integration (CMMI). Under the general description, explanation will be given for interactions among the ISO/IEC 15504 and CMMI, which is also referred as SPICE (although this may be wrong in some context) (Khoshgoftar and Osman 2009). One of the objectives of the paper is to identify connection or relationship between ISO/IEC 15504 SPICE and improvement of process through the approaches of CMMI. This explains the mapping with the two methodologies, with an outline as to how both would provide a roadmap for achieving the improvement of the process to the next level. The study also provides the effect of each of the method and also the detailed insight in the methods. It elucidates the insights in two approaches in the organizations that are interested in choosing these process improvement methodologies for deriving best meets results. It tries to identify the widely accepted improvement of the process methodology that is adopted by the two approaches and also identifies the pointers for them to determine which is better than the other (Khoshgoftar and Osman 2009). ISO/IEC 15504 and CMMI are the two main models for improvement and process assessment. CMMI provides a standard method for improving process; this is done through some of the simple measure as the organization grows mature in the process improvement method. ISO/IEC 15504 makes sure that the possibility for assessing these capabilities for every process, for getting detailed processes capability profile and to define some of the individual improvement methodology. The paper also tries to investigate the relationship with the CMMI-DEV maturity levels as well as ISO/IEC 15504 process capability. Some of the mapping approach and ISO/IEC 15504 processes capability have ensured by most of the CMMI maturity levels, and this has been elaborated as well (Ragaisis et al. 2010). 2. Management of systems development projects Software process engineering has been accepted as one of the most known software engineering sphere over the last ten year. Investigations around the software process maturity which is allowed to receive deep insights in the software activities, definition of the management of the software processes, definition of the quality of software products by the quality of the software process and with the introduction of sound software process models helps in assessing and evaluating organization and software process (Pino et al. 2008). The achievements in the research have been noticeable but the issues in software projects are very sharp and actual. Most of the firm seeks to from these process models that are stimulated through harmonization of various models and in investigation of these process improvements in the environments that is multi-model. The evolution of software process has raised mainly two frameworks which are called SPICE and CMM and the following revisions. These are called ISO/IEC 15504 and CMMI. The two models are mostly used and accepted worldwide (Khodabandeh and Palazzi 1994; Pino et al. 2008). The software process model is also the foundation for the process definition, for assessment and for improving the process. This would assure the usage of the concepts that is relevant and can be best used by the software engineering. This would be widely accepted around the international markets as well. The process examines mainly two aspects, the activities of the software products and its development or the provision for services and the activities that describe the performance; this would also be the ability for meeting defined cost, schedule, and scope with the quality being the utmost goal (Jiang et al. 2004). The software process models can be classified as per their architecture, which is continuous and staged. Staged representation model has been intended for assessing the maturity of the entire software process and can be defined in five stages for the purpose of sequential improvement of the process. The result of the assessment is the single rating of the maturity level for an organization that allows the comparisons within them. The representation model that is continuous has been made for assessing the capability of the process or the process area which is required elicitation, designing the software, managing the configuration and others. In such a case, the result for the assessment for the organization is the process capability profile that consists of capability levels for the named process that identifies the most difficult or straggle processes. By the capability of the process, this is assessed separately, but can be related to each by any means. There might be a remote possibility for improving the process without being able to associate the process in a silo (Van Loon 2004). Some of the answer can be universal that is which of the software process model architecture can be the most suitable. One of the criterion i.e., model particularity as well as the purpose of the application can be employed. Staged representation model can be most suitable the purpose of marketing as it the organization a single rating which can be enough proof for the potential clients. It is an easy methodology for comparing the maturity of various organizations that might not be detailed and can be flexible as it offers some solitary sequence for improving. This does not allow measuring software improvement in any detail. The continuous representation model also allows the selection of the order for improving the process which meets best in relation to the business relation and with the organization. This can be less complicated and can easily compare the maturity of various organizations (Halvorsen and Conradi 2001). The organizations would have to choose between the models for process assessment that is most suitable per the goals derived by the business. In order to view a real software process within a firm, can be complicated task but has to be done nevertheless. Every maturity level defines the set of the process areas that has to be performed. Although, it is pertinent to emphasize that the set of the key process cannot be considered to as a true process profile as an organization performs its own primary processes that depends on the activity that are basic. This can be outside of the maturity level activities. Thus, mapping of the maturity level is defined per the minimal processes profile. Relationship with the ISO/IEC 15504 and CMMI maturity level process capability profile has an implication, in such a case where an organization has maturity level N, in such a case, the processes capability profile of an organization like this is not very “lower” than the established mapping models (Eisenhardt 1985; El-Emam and Jung 2001). 2.1. CMMI As per SEI, a Capability Maturity Model (CMM) is a model that is reference for mature practices under a specified discipline which is used to improve and appraise group's capability for performing discipline. As the definition is not restricted to software development process, it may come as a surprise as many CMMs were developed for disciplines, for instance systems engineering. In case of non-technical processes which involves developing and managing workforce, it has been found that CMMs were created there as well (Rout 2005). Under such a circumstance, CMMI project was formed in an integration of the three of the various CMM. The major goals of the CMM for Software, the Electronic Alliance industries Interim Standard which is also denoted as EIA/IS 731, along with the Integrated Product Development, i.e. IPD CMM can be termed a few. One of the other goals was to enable integration of the future models. With the result of such goals, CMMI evolved a model framework that could have parameters that depended on some selected disciplines which an organization thinks of being most relevant for achieving the goals of the business (Rout 2005). At present, four disciplines are available under CMMI, this is systems engineering or SE, integrated product/process development or IPPD, software engineering, which is SW as well as supplier sourcing, SS. One of the focus areas is the SW discipline that would be discussed in detail in the following chapters. Under the actual process model, SEI also releases the CMMI Acquisition Module. This is a that defines efficient and effective practices for acquiring projects, as well as Appraisal Requirements for CMMI, ARC, that defines some of the essential requirements for appraisal methods. This is intended for using CMMI models. Additional to ARC, there is a Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for improving process, which is denoted as SCAMPI, this was developed by SEI. The SEI offers training courses, which ranges from CMMI to SCAMPI (Rout 2005). 2.2. ISO/IEC 15504 ISO/IEC 15504-2:2003 gives requirements for conducting assessing the process on the basis for using the process improvement and determination of the capability. SPICE also defines the common basis for assessing the software processes, on varied industries and around organization for various application domains. The assessment is not on a basis of particular structure in the organization, philosophies of management, models on life cycle, development or technologies methods. This also provides the basis of comparing processes in various business houses and is applicable on projects and organizational level. The model is very flexible (Rout and Tuffley 2007). The process of assessing is based on two dimensional models that contain one process dimension and the other capability dimension. Process dimension has been provided by external reference model that defines a set of processes that is characterized by statements by process and purpose outcomes. On the other hand, capability dimension contains measurement framework that compromises of six process capability levels and the associated attributes. Assessment output has a set of process attribute ratings that is accessed by each process. It may also include capability level that has been achieved by the process (Rout and Tuffley 2007). ISO/IEC 15504-2:2003 tries to identify the measurement framework for the process capability and the requirements that are related to performing assessment, the process of the reference models, process of assessing models, verifying the conformity of assessing process. Most of the requirements for the assessment of the process are defined in ISO/IEC 15504-2:2003 to form a structure which can facilitate self-assessment. This is able to provide some basis for using the process improvement and determining the capability. It also takes into account the context by which process can be accessed or implemented. It also produces a process of rating and also addresses the ability for processing to achieve the purpose defined. This is applicable across the applications and domains, with the sizes of organization. This may provide benchmark within and outside the organizations. The set minimum requirement that is defined in ISO/IEC 15504-2:2003 helps ensuring the assessment results that are objective, consistent, impartial, repeatable and representative of the processes accessed. Some of the results from the conformant process that are used for assessments can be compared when the scopes of these assessments can be considered for similar functions, that can be for guidance on the matter, which is related to ISO/IEC 15504-4 (Rout and Tuffley 2007). ISO/IEC 15504 is a common basis for Software Process Assessment that is used for different methods and allows assessment results that can be obtained under a single form and has provides sufficient details for identifying the gap areas. ISO/IEC 15504 also details out the indication of maturity for each individual software process in the organization for understanding some of the rapid identification for weaknesses and strengths. ISO/IEC 15504 is tool-supported and is a self-assessment tool for important for enhancing or improving process (Rout 2005). Assessment of activities that are proven approach towards implementing an infrastructure can be considered for improving the business environment. SPICE assessments are able to create framework that prioritizes software process for improving analysis within the organization and understanding the business needs. It also helps in tailoring the process assessment model for specifying some of the organization goals in specifics (Rout 2005). 3. Differences between CMMI and ISO/IEC 15504 The section focuses on the major differences between ISO/IEC 15504 and CMMI, which are explained below (Mitašiūnas and Ragaišis 2006): 3.1. Process Areas The following table provides an overview on the various process categories of ISO/IEC 15504 and CMMI (Mitašiūnas and Ragaišis 2006) Table 1: Process categories in CMMI and ISO/IEC 15504 CMMI ISO/IEC 15504 Engineering Support Project Management Process Management Engineering Support Management Organisation Customer-Supplier 3.2. Processes Many of the processes of ISO/IEC 15504 do not have any direct equivalent to the CMMI. Some of these include SUP.7 (Audit Process), CUS.4 (Operation Process), ORG.4 (Infrastructure Process), MAN.1 (Management Process) and ORG.6 (Reuse Process) (Mitašiūnas and Ragaišis 2006). 3.3. Representation In comparison to CMMI, ISO/IEC 15504 provides just one representation, known as the continuous representation (Mitašiūnas and Ragaišis 2006). 3.4. Organizational capability The organizational capability is being described in CMMI in the form of maturity levels. However, it is not so in the case of ISO/IEC 15504, as ISO/IEC 15504 focuses on processes and provides continuous representation. Further, with regards to organizational capability in ISO/IEC 15504, it is implied and needs to be understood in an intuitive manner by learning about the process attributes, the organizational process and its various dependences (Mitašiūnas and Ragaišis 2006). 3.5. Role of lead assessor In CMMI, the role of the lead assessor is very important as the CMMI model is mainly dependent on the lead assessor itself. However, with regards to ISO/IEC 15504, not much major difference could be found between the other team members and the lead assessor. While, the quality, performance and trustworthiness in CMMI needs to be looked after by the lead assessor, in ISO/IEC 15504 such responsibilities are being shared by all the team members as per their ratings (Mitašiūnas and Ragaišis 2006). 3.6. Strengths and weaknesses Some of the strengths and weaknesses of CMMI and ISO/IEC 15504 are being discussed below (Coletta 2010): CMMI ISO/IEC 15504 Strengths Not only IT but a generic model Can be integrated easily with the popular model CMMI-DEV Important model for helping in creating service lifecycle Model separates service request management from incident management Can be aligned easily with the popular IITL best practices Could be used in harmony with other ISO Management System standards With regards to the open SPICE architecture, there is a clear plug-in The model also deals with specific IT problems and issues as well It does not have any empty MLI Weaknesses Empty Maturity level 1 Information Security Management is not covered well in this model The model still has PAM under development There are no plan to create Organizational Maturity Model Model could not be integrated with other PAM/PRM well, which inhibits creation of service system design Has some overlapping processes, which are not defined clearly Two unrelated processes, i.e. request fulfillment and incident management both could be found in this model 4. Relationship between CMMI and ISO/IEC 15504 The CMMI model is being especially created for development and in some cases the focus in on developing software. Such a model provides guidance related to how to develop the software. On the other hand, ISO/IEC 15504 is considered to be a generic model, with some software related guidelines provided by the model. Thus, if a person is looking at models for developing software, it is advisable to focus on CMMI rather than ISO/IEC 15504, as CMMI has software development as its core competence. Further, with regards to the scope of these models, it has been found that CMMI is much more extensive, especially regarding software development as compared to ISO/IEC 15504. Also, most of the ISO/IEC 15504 model requirements are addressed by CMMI for developing software, therefore making it a better option to be used for creating software development processes (Bendinskas et al. 2005). 4.1. Maturity Levels and Corresponding Capability Profiles In order to understand the mapping of these models, their structures are being discussed with the presentation of the mapping approach (Ibbs and Kwak 2000). Research indicates that the assessment model ISO/IEC 15504 has two dimensions, i.e. process dimension and capability dimension. The process dimension has several processes, wherein every process is being defined as per its outcomes and purpose, which means the implementation of the process in a successful manner. Capability dimension on the other hand has six more capability levels on which the model is assessed. These levels start from the level 0 of incomplete process to reach up to level 5 of optimizing process. Except level 0, each and every capability level also consists of certain process attributes which defines the particular characteristic of the process capability (Ibbs and Kwak 2000). These process attributes are being defined by explaining the achievements that needs to be implemented. The achievements of these attributes are being measured with regards to the outcomes. Further, level 1 of the process attribute needs to have special emphasis as the single achievement that this process would attain is being related to the outcomes that are defined for the particular process. Also, the mapping must be done in such a way that it should address certain elements for each of the process including for level 1, the process outcomes and for levels 2-5, the achievements (Ibbs and Kwak 2000). CMMI also consist of five maturity levels that helps in measuring the capability of the processes implemented or to be implemented within an organization. These maturity levels start with level 1 or the initial level to level 5 or the optimizing level. Other than the maturity level 1, each and every maturity level has several process areas as well that in a collective manner helps in managing and predicting the processes within an organization as well as form the basis for developing the next processes as well. Further, the CMMI’s rating elements have both generic and specific goals. These goals are rated as per the performance of each of the generic and specific goals. Thus, these practices can be seen as the representation for process capability and process performance for CMMI in a similar manner as that of ISO/IEC 15504 (Kuilboer and Ashrafi 2000). Thus, the two models can be integrated wherein the generic and specific practices of CMMI processes could be mapped along with the achievements and outcomes of ISO/IEC 15504 processes (Kuilboer and Ashrafi 2000). The model’s simplified structure which also includes the mapping elements and as well as the traditional mapping schemes are given in the below figure: Figure 1: traditional mapping scheme and simplified structure of the models However, it should also be noted that while conducting mapping of such high level elements, there are scope for personal judgments as well. Thus, it is necessary to understand the models’ elements in details and use the correct one for mapping the processes. The sub-practices used in CMMI are being seen as informative components which help in generating ideas that might be or might not be used for improving the processes. However, such a model does help in giving guidance to interpret generic or specific practices. Thus, one may use such CMMI sub-practices into the mapping along with generic practice elaborations and typical work products as well. The processes assessment conformant of the ISO/IEC 15504 within an organization is being based on the Process Assessment Model (PAM). Therefore, one may decide to use the PAM defined in ISO/IEC 15504-5 into the mapping as well. It also helps in expanding the process definitions with the inclusion of base practices that could also indicate the performance level of the processes. Further, PAM also helps in defining another set of indicators that measures the performance of the processes, wherein each of the processes is being associated with the work products. In ISO/IEC 15504-5, the capability dimension is also increased along with the generic practices that are a part of the indicators’ set defining process capability. This increase in capability also includes the generic work product indicators and generic resource indicators (Khoshgoftar and Osman 2009). Further, creating a correlation between CMMI and ISO/IEC 15504-5 helps in understanding the maturity level of an organization. For example, if the capability dimension in ISO/IEC 15504-5 model is at level 2 or the process capability in CMMI is at level 2, it can be understood that the processes within the organization is at maturity level 2. Such an understanding therefore, would help the organization to access its future plans and develop the processes accordingly. Further, such a mapping would also help the company to identify whether it has been able to fulfill its goals as yet by assessing the processes against the outcomes of the models. Although, models mapping might not be able to give the precise processes capability profile of ISO/IEC 15504-5, the assessment results of CMMI for an organization may help in assessing or reassign the ISO/IEC 15504-5 processes as well (Ragaisis et al. 2010). 5. Conclusions The paper helped in understanding the process assessment for software and improvement practice and theory by providing detailed analysis of ISO/IEC 15504-5 and CMMI processes and understanding the various maturity levels used in these models. It also supported the creating of the method to assess organization results as per the ISO/IEC 15504-5 and CMMI models (Ibbs and Kwak 2000; Kuilboer and Ashrafi 2000). In order to assess the processes used within an organization, it has been found that CMMI and ISO/IEC 15504 are two of the major models that can be used. While CMMI provides a standard method for improving process, ISO/IEC 15504 makes sure that the possibility for assessing these capabilities for every process. The process improvement method of CMMI employs some of the simple measure as the organization grows mature, while in ISO/IEC 15504 a detailed processes capability profile and definition some of the individual improvement methodologies are being prepared. The paper also focused on the relationship between the maturity levels of CMMI and ISO/IEC 15504 process capability (Bendinskas et al. 2005; Coletta 2010). The paper found that some of the mapping approaches used by ISO/IEC 15504 processes capability were ensured by most of the CMMI maturity levels as well, which were elaborated in detail. The paper also found that the CMMI model is being specifically created for development, especially for developing software. Such a model provides guidance on processes to be followed to develop software. On the other hand, ISO/IEC 15504, which is considered to be a generic model, has a fewer software related guidelines as compared to the CMMI. Thus, if an organization is planning to use a model to develop software, it is advisable to choose CMMI rather than ISO/IEC 15504, as CMMI has software development as its core competence. While comparing the scope of these models, it was found that CMMI is much more extensive, especially regarding software development as compared to ISO/IEC 15504. Further, CMMI also addresses most of the ISO/IEC 15504 model requirements in developing software (Mitašiūnas and Ragaišis 2006). However, research needs to be undertaken further to understand the minimal processes capability profiles that focuses on each and every maturity level for CMMI. Also it needs to be understood the various methods for translating the assessment results of the organization as per the models of different architecture. References Bendinskas, V., Mikaliūnas, G., Mitašiūnas, A. and Ragaišis, S. 2005, ‘Towards Mature Software Process’, Information Technology and Control, Vol.34, No.2A, 2005, pp. 209-214. Coletta, A. 2010, 'CMMI-SVC vs. SPICE-SVC: A critical analysis of weaknesses and strengths', SPICE DAYS 2010 Conference 22-23 June 2010, Stuttgart, Germany. Eisenhardt, K.M. 1985, ‘Control: organizational economic approaches,’ Management Science 31 (2), pp. 134-149. El-Emam, K. and Jung, H.-W. 2001, ‘An evaluation of the ISO/IEC 15504 assessment model,’ Journal of Systems and Software 59(1), pp. 23-41. Ferreira, A. and Machado, R. 2009, ‘Software Process Improvement in Multimodel Environments,’ Fourth International Conference on Software Engineering Advances, pp.512-517. Halvorsen, C.P. and Conradi, R. 2001, ‘A Taxonomy to Compare SPI Frameworks,’ Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol.2077, 2001, pp. 217-235. Ibbs, C.W. and Kwak, Y.H. 2000, ‘Assessing project management maturity,’ Project management Journal 31 (1), pp. 32-43. Jiang, J., Klein, G., Hwang, H.-G., Huang, J. and Hung, S.-Y. 2004, ‘An exploration of the relationship between software development process maturity and project performance,’ Information & Management (41), pp. 279–288. Khodabandeh, A. and Palazzi, P. 1994, ‘Software Development: People, Process, Technology. CERN - ECP Division - Programming Techniques Group,’ Published in the proceedings of the 1994 CERN School of Computing, Sopron, Hungary and as CERN ECP Report 95/5. Khoshgoftar, M. and Osman, O. 2009, ‘Comparison of maturity models,’ 2nd IEEE International Conference on Computer Science and Information Technology, 2009, pp.297-301. Kuilboer, J.P. and Ashrafi, N. 2000, ‘Software process and product improvement: an empirical assessment’, Information and Software Technology 42, 2000, pp. 27-34. Mitašiūnas, A. and Ragaišis, S. 2006, ‘Relationship between CMMI maturity levels and ISO/IEC 15504 processes capability profiles’, Databases and information systems: 7th international Baltic conference, 2006, pp. 119-129. Pino, F., Garcia, F. and Piattini, M. 2008, ‘Software Process Improvement in Small and Medium Software Enterprises: A Systematic Review,’ Software Quality Journal, 16(2), pp. 237-261. Ragaisis, S., Peldzius, S. and Simenas, S. 2010, ‘Mapping CMMI-DEV maturity levels to ISO/IEC 15504 capability profiles,’ Proceedings of the 9th WSEAS international conference on Telecommunications and informatics, May 29-31, 2010, Catania, Italy. Rout, T. 2005, ‘CMMI conformance to ISO/IEC 15504,’ Presentation in 5th International SPICE Conference on Process Assessment and Improvement, April 27-29, 2005 – University of Klagenfurt, Austria. Rout, T. and Tuffley, A. 2007, ‘Harmonizing ISO/IEC 15504 AND CMMI,’ Software Process Improvement and Practice, 12, pp. 361-371. Van Loon, H. 2004, Process Assessment and ISO/IEC 15504, A Reference Book, Springer. Read More